Liberal Zionists Oppose Expulsion of African Refugees But Deny Nakba

NOTE: Thanks to Middle East Eye for publishing my latest piece today on Vice President Mike Pence’s failed Middle East trip, in which even Jesus closed his door to him (Palestinian Christians refused to welcome him to Bethlehem). Give it a read and please share on social media.

As I wrote yesterday here, Israel’s far-right government has, true to form for all such governments in Europe and here in the U.S., adopted a harsh approach to the 60,000 African refugees who crossed deserts and braved bandits to make their way from war-torn lands to the relative stability of Israel. After devising facilities in the desert which more closely resembled concentration camps than prisons, and fomenting anti-African pogroms in poor neighborhoods of Tel Aviv, the government is adopting the most punitive plan it can. Despite a Supreme Court ruling saying it may not forcibly deport refugees, Netanyahu is offering them a simple choice: either go to jail for years or accept our offer of expulsion to Rwanda or other third-country.

It hardly matters that this approach is a grave violation of UN humanitarian protocols, which Israel itself has signed. Israel may not expel refugees. It also must put in place a process of adjudicating refugee applications and permitting those with legitimate claims to remain in Israel till they’re able to return safely to their homes. As of now, almost no refugees have either received such hearings or been granted such status.

Further, Israel is expelling refugees to countries in which they will have no formal status at all. They will be stateless and shorn of any rights, making them vulnerable to extortion, enslavement, and crime.

But there is one historical tragedy which none of these Israeli groups will mention in their protest. The omission of the Nakba is a telling statement about the moral blindness of these sectors of the liberal Zionist universe. Israel created nearly 1-million Palestinian refugees in 1948 through a pattern of ethnic cleansing and terror which expelled them from their homes in what became Israel.

These refugees fled to many other countries which took them in, some willingly and others unwillingly (Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Syria). There are scores of refugee camps throughout these countries which still house hundreds of thousands of the refugees and their descendants. They are mostly stateless and live in grinding poverty. Other expellees traveled to western countries and planted roots there.

The only difference between African refugees and Palestinians is that the latter were indigenous to Israel, while the Africans migrated to Israel and are not indigenous (not that this deprecates their rights in any way).

While I appreciate the moral stance of Israeli liberals on this issue, I say it is not enough. Real justice demands taking stock of the refugees that your own state created at its founding. All refugees must receive fair, proper and just treatment whether African or Palestinian.

This liberal Zionist does not deny that an event took place wherein (for multifarious reasons) Arabs left their places of domicile in the Israeli War of Independence. However, the apohorism indigenous is somewhat disingenuous and erroneous if you denote exclusivity with it. Jews also came to Ottoman Palestine in the 19th century as part of the “shivat Tsion return to Zion – as well as many Arabs inter-alia. Certainly the refugee issue of these Arabs should be addressed (as was the issue of Jews – even up to nearly 2000 years) – but if it is in the terms of exclusivity, i.e. the removal of the indigenous Jews from the land… then it is unacceptable.

@ gefilte: “Arabs left their domicile?” Are you daft? I hate when people prostitute language for their own purposes. They were EXPELLED. They didn’t “leave.” That could denote they did so of their own volition, when they didn’t. I’m not going to get into an argument with you on this. But don’t ever use such terms again here.

‘Indigenous’ doesn’t denote ‘exclusivity.’ I don’t know how well you know English. But you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of it whether or not you speak the language.

A very small number of Jews who lived in Palestine-Israel over generations were indigenous. Almost all Jews living in Israel now were not indigenous. And a vague tenuous connection to Israelites does not denote indigenousness. However, regardless of this, I’m not arguing that anyone should be expelled, Jews or Palestinians. I’m arguing that expellees must be returned.

Again, I don’t intend to start a whole argument here on the ins & outs of this argument. I reserve the right to cut you off if you try to do that.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 23, 2018 1:27 AM

Ed

[comment deleted: do not comment further in this thread]

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

January 23, 2018 5:35 AM

DAVIDE POLIMENO

I agree. But as for Palestinian refugees, even most liberal Israelis claim ” it was an absolute necessity in order to create the Jewish state”.

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

You can adjust all of your cookie settings by navigating the tabs on the left hand side.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.